Mentoring for continuous improvement in teaching and learning

This issue of Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership in Learning Journal includes research from scholars representing a wide range of disciplines throughout the United States and globally (Qatar, British Columbia, Australia, and Lebanon and China). Collectively, the findings of these international contributors present compelling evidence of the pedagogical approaches, tools and techniques for conceptualizing mentoring for continuous improvement in teaching and learning in diverse academic disciplines and settings. Generally, continuous improvement in education has been couched within emergent literature as individualized growth situated within professional learning experiences via various engagement modalities and with the ancillary purpose of transformative knowledge. Although necessary, individualized growth is different than continuous improvement and in discursive findings from the literature, growth mindsets are somewhat de-empowering for improving teaching and learning (Muijs & Harris, 2003; Palmer, 2017).

From a theoretical and historical perspective, discourse on educational systems effectively targeting improved teaching and learning typically encompasses some mode or strategy of building educator capacity through coaching practices (questioning, modeling, observation, and feedback). As Irby (2012) discussed, there are distinct commonalities and differences between coaching and mentoring. Most notably, coaching is task or problem-centered, while ‘mentoring relationships are people-centered’ (p. 245). In his book An Administrator’s Guide to Better Teacher Mentoring, William L. Fibkins likens teaching to a performance art – one where those who are classically trained persist at improving their craft through countless hours invested in honing and refining a unique skillset that may take a lifetime to truly master (Fibkins, 2011). Resultingly, the goal of mentoring is the development of a positive relationship in which mentors, with specific and comprehensive goals, empower mentees through frequent reflective dialogues, often over extended periods of time. As the mentoring relationship evolves over time, so does wisdom – the ability to apply skills, knowledge, and experience to new situations and processes (Templeton, Hammett, Low, Arrambide, & Willis, 2016). Thus, this issue of Mentoring and Tutoring creates a platform for scholars and practitioners to share voice as each navigates the paradigm shift from capacity building through professional development to empowering professional practice inherent to continuous improvement and lifelong learning.

In the lead article, Mentoring as a Transformative Experience, Hall and Silva utilize a descriptive qualitative study to explore graduate students’ perspectives about mentoring. Using a sample of students from multiple disciplines, the authors interviewed 54 Canadian participants in 12 focus groups, including masters’ (n = 19), unclassified (n = 1), and PhD (n = 34). Findings support mentoring as a transformative experience that strengthens institutional supervisory practices and graduate student retention and success when systematic approaches support students’ aspirational goals.

In the second paper in this issue, Cross-Cultural Considerations: Mentoring Teachers in Jewish Day Schools, Bressman, Winter, and Efron utilize the lens of cross-cultural relationships to examine the influence differences in culture and religion have on mentoring interactions and professional growth experiences. Findings indicate context-specific mentoring is strengthened when mentors become familiar with the school community and exhibit a respectful and non-judgmental attitude toward the unique religious and cultural elements of the school community. Findings also extend the discourse on teacher mentoring as a process of lifelong learning for teachers and mentors.

Ewing, in the article Mentoring Novice Teachers, employs an idiographic approach to critically examine how the support received by novice teachers in their first-year impacts staff retention and overall teaching quality. The internal-external model reported in the findings affirm the value of using external experienced teachers to mentor internal novice teachers in small cohorts. The findings also support the literature regarding the long-term positive attributes early and targeted mentoring as an induction strategy has for novice teachers and their students.

The fourth article, Mentor Teacher’s and Student Teacher’s Perspectives on Teacher Leadership, by Sawalhi and Chaaban, adopted the Teacher Leadership Inventory (TLI) in order to understand the perceptions of mentor teachers and student teachers towards teacher leadership. A one-way ANOVA was used to determine whether there were statistically significant differences between student teacher and mentor teacher perceptions on the four factors of the TLI. Findings revealed that mentor teachers had significantly higher scores than student teachers on two factors; Shared Expertise and Shared Leadership. Further, the demographic variables of years of experience, nationality, and gender affected the mentor teachers’ perceptions towards the three factors of Shared Leadership, Supra-Practitioner and Principal Selection, respectively.

In the fifth article, The Peer Mentor Experience: Benefits and Challenges in Undergraduate Programs, Marshall, Dobb-Oates, Kunberger, and Green share the results of a cross-institutional study investigating the impact serving as a peer mentor had on upper-level undergraduate students. Using a focus group methodology, the authors interviewed students in peer mentoring programs at two universities with the goal of identifying commonalities between the two sites regarding the benefits and challenges associated with serving in a peer mentoring capacity. Findings indicate that students acquired benefits in three broad categories: relational knowledge, self-awareness, and career development. Conversely, students faced challenges in three broad categories: learning the mentor role, relating to students, and student engagement. While differences in results can be attributed to programmatic variations, similarities suggest outcomes that could be generalizable to multiple programs and universities.

Mondisa, Packard, and Montgomery, in their article Understanding What STEM Mentoring Ecosystems Need to Thrive: A STEM_ME Framework, discussed the racial and gender disparities that continue to persist in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields despite decades of mentoring interventions designed to improve recruitment and retention. Findings were espoused using a STEM Mentoring Ecosystems (STEM-ME) framework in order to better contextualize the mentoring systems that are needed to bring about change in STEM fields. The authors discuss how the STEM-ME framework informs future empirical research and practitioner experience.

This issue concludes with the article, Mentoring Approaches and Opportunities for Learning to Teach: A Comparative Study of the Practicum Experience in Lebanon and China, in which Chaaban, Wang, and Du report the findings of a comparative qualitative study conducted in Lebanon and China on mentoring approaches, including compatibility with student expectations, and facilitation of learning opportunities. Analyzed data sources included interviews, journals, and essays from 20 student teachers (STs), and interviews from 10 cooperating teachers (CTs). Study findings indicated a dominant laissez-faire approach in the Lebanese context with negative compatibility with STs’ expectations, and an apprenticeship approach in the Chinese context with positive compatibility with STs’ expectations. The authors recommend a transformative approach to mentoring aligned with system supports in order to maximize learning opportunities during the practicum experience.

Publishing in mentoring and tutoring

Authors are reminded as they submit their work to the journal to ensure all manuscripts follow the American Psychological Association’s Publication Manual (7th edition) format. We receive quite a number with APA formatting errors. In Volume 20, Issue 1, we outlined several common concerns with submissions. When writing your manuscript, please remember to check your headings, spacing, table formats, and references for correct 7th edition usage. Because the journal is very popular and competitive, and we are receiving on average three to five manuscripts every 2 weeks. Please prepare works that are extremely attentive to detail (e.g., current and relevant citations, high-quality writing, careful proofreading, proper formatting style) and that are making specific contributions to the field of mentoring and tutoring. For further information, consult the Taylor & Francis posting of the M&T author guidelines for article manuscripts and book reviews: http://www.tandf.couk/journals/authors/cmetauth.asp) (ISSN 1361–1267).

We do not conduct pre-reviews; rather, we will be mentoring authors in the publication process within the FastTrack system review process. That said, the Editor reserves the right to conduct desk rejections at the outset if manuscripts to not follow the prescribed guidelines. Please go to the Manuscript FastTrack system to register as a user and then upload your manuscript and any additional information through the system. The FastTrack system helps with the ease of communication between authors, reviewers, and the editor and resolves issues of overloaded email inboxes.

The current requirements for M&T are that the paper, not including references and abstract, should be a maximum of 30 pages, including references, tables, and figures. Depending on the manuscript, we may consider manuscripts that are longer than 30 pages, and certainly we will accept manuscripts shorter than the prescribed 30 pages. If you have any questions about how to submit your manuscript to M&T, please go to International Council of Professors of Educational Administration (ICPEL) Publications at http://www.icpel.org. Click on M&T from the Menu of Buttons on the top of that screen. The submission link appears there on the M&T home page. You may, of course, access the journal page from the Taylor & Francis Publisher page at http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/titles/13611267.asp.

Qualified individuals who serve on the Review Board, along with select Editorial Board members provide commentaries. We would also like for you to register in the same location as you submit to be considered to be a member of the M&T Journal Review Board. We will be acknowledging the Review Board at the end of the year and a top reviewer will be honored. The acceptance rate of the journal is currently 10%. Mentoring & Tutoring is abstracted in Academic Search; Australian Education Index (AEI); Australian Research Council (ARC) Ranked Journal List; Cabells; National Database for Research into International Education (NDRI); British Education Index; Contents Pages in Education; Educational Research Abstracts online (ERA); EBSCOhost EJS; Emerging Sources Citation Index (ESCI); Education Resources Information Center (ERIC); PsycINFO and SCOPUS®, and Cabell’s Directory of Publishing Opportunities in Educational Curriculum and Methods. Additionally, Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership in Learning is now included in the Thomson Reuters Emerging Sources Citation Index.

Many authors have been turning to the M&T journal as the venue-of-choice for publishing high-quality works for over 20 years. M&T is the longest-running mentoring journal in the field. This refereed, peer-reviewed journal is known worldwide. Authors, readers, and subscribers are from different countries and various types of institutions and professional environments. The editorial team is committed to producing timely, thorough reviews, modeling conscientious guidance and support, and being open to a wide scope of topics and methods related to mentoring and tutoring, collaboration, and learning.

Books to be reviewed must be about mentoring and tutoring. Visit this journal’s website, http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/carfax/13611267.html, for more information about M&T, as well as special rates and discounts.